Tuesday, June 11, 2013

Here Is How Gnosticism Informs Evolution

More Religion in Science

Evolution professor John Avise ends his book, Inside the Human Genome, with a gnostic crescendo. The National Academy of Sciences member writes:

This welcome sentiment—that the evolutionary sciences and religion both have important and complementary roles to play in philosophical discussions about the human condition—has been expressed in many notable statements

Avise then provides several quotes, including this from Michael Zimmerman’s The Clergy Letter Project:

We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.

And this from Francis Collins:

Science’s domain is to explore nature, God’s domain is the spiritual world, a realm not possible to explore with the tools and language of science. It must be examined with the heart, the mind, and the soul.

Gnosticism is sometimes viewed as an ancient belief, but the division of the material and the spiritual into separate realms is alive and well in evolutionary thought.

Nor is this merely a recent fad. Avise could have quoted from, for example, Baden Powell, mathematician at Oxford and Anglican priest who wrote In 1838 that scientific and revealed truth are of different natures, and any attempt to combine and unite them would “infallibly injure both.”

And of course if the spiritual world is so isolated from the material world, then the latter, including the species, must have arisen without any help from the former. In other words, the world must have arisen naturally, as Powell explained in 1855, a few years before Darwin published his book:

No inductive inquirer can bring himself to believe in the existence of any real hiatus in the continuity of physical laws in past eras more than in the existing order of things; or to imagine that changes, however seemingly abrupt, can have been brought about except by the gradual agency of some regular causes. … But however little we know of the laws or causes of these changes, one thing is perfectly clear, the introduction of new species was a regular, not a casual phenomenon; it was not one preceding or transcending the order of nature; it was a case occurring in the midst of ordinary operations going on in accordance with ordinary causes. The introduction of a new species (however marvellous and inexplicable some theorists may choose to imagine it) is not a solitary occurrence. It reappears constantly in the lapse of geological ages. It recurs regularly in connexion with those changes which determined the peculiar characters we now distinguish in different formations. It is part of a series. But a series indicates a principle of regularity and law, as much in organic as in inorganic changes. The event is part of a regularly ordained mechanism of the evolution of the existing world out of former conditions, and as much subject to regular laws as any changes now taking place.

But, as Avise explains, there is a problem. This gnostic truth may be firmly in hand, but there remain those who won’t go along—those who allow for the spiritual and material to intersect. These evolutionists conveniently label as fundamentalists and warn that in fundamentalism, religion has overstepped its bounds. And so in the final paragraph Avise makes his plea:

The evolutionary-genetic sciences thus can help religion to escape from the profound conundrums of Intelligent Design and thereby return religion to its rightful realm—not as the secular interpreter of the biological minutiae of our physical existence but rather as a respectable philosophical counselor on grander matters including ethics and morality, the soul, spiritual-ness, sacredness, and other such matters that have always been of ultimate concern to humanity.

Again, the sentiment is nothing new as Avise could have been quoting from Andrew Dickson White, cofounder of Cornell University who in the late nineteenth century targeted those "mediaeval conceptions of Christianity" (evolutionists had not yet hit upon the “fundamentalism” label). Once this “dogmatic theology” is excised, White explained, the separation of God and nature will be complete, and all will be well:

My belief is that in the field left to them—their proper field—the clergy will more and more, as they cease to struggle against scientific methods and conclusions, do work even nobler and more beautiful than anything they have heretofore done. And this is saying much. My conviction is that Science, though it has evidently conquered Dogmatic Theology based on biblical texts and ancient modes of thought, will go hand in hand with Religion; and that, although theological control will continue to diminish, Religion, as seen in the recognition of “a Power in the universe, not ourselves, which makes for righteousness,” and in the love of God and of our neighbor, will steadily grow stronger and stronger, not only in the American institutions of learning but in the world at large.

Today’s evolutionists express the same thoughts and concerns as their forbearers. This is not because today’s evolutionists are mining the literature from centuries past but rather because there are consistent threads of belief that run through time. Evolution is a genre in the history of thought. And one of its cornerstones is Gnosticism.

Try to imagine that you believed in this Gnosticism. Then you too would be an evolutionist. Religion drives science, and it matters.

Actually, this would be a good time for cornelius and anyone else who claims that gnosticism has something to do with evolutionary theory to read up on gnosticism, and evolutionary theory.

Gnosticism has absolutely NOTHING to do with evolutionary theory, except possibly to some so-called theistic evolutionists, and/or IDiot-creationists.

cornelius, the ways in which you twist things around and just make shit up is a profound demonstration of your massive dishonesty and deranged religious beliefs. You obviously believe that any lie, any game, any bogus accusation, and any distortion of reality on your part is just fine as long as you're pushing your totally unscientific, totally unrealistic, totally insane, dominionist agenda.

Isn't it way past time for you to grow up and quit believing in and pushing ridiculous, impossible, religious fairy tales?

Why did you even bother going to college since you were and are determined to remain claustrated in your religious prison? You're wasting an education and your life, and at biola you're helping to ruin the minds of young people.

"Isn't it way past time for you to grow up and quit believing in and pushing ridiculous, impossible, religious fairy tales?"

Do you honestly expect us to convert to your secular belief system? Are we to drop what we all know intuitively to be true and embrace your ridiculous secular myths and fantasies?

You are of course welcome to attach yourself to any religion, secular or traditional, but to pretend yours is a position of logic and reason is dishonest to say the least. Your position is faith, not evidence based... plain and simple.

"What would a position that was evidence based, and not faith based, look like? I'm curious."

Good question, Ritchie. I too am curious about what Jay thinks is an evidence based position.

Hey Jay, what about all of the other religious people who have ever lived who didn't/don't believe in the same god(s) and associated myths and fantasies as you do? Are their beliefs and "faith" right or wrong? What if they were to claim that they "all know" their particular myths and fantasies "intuitively to be true"? What "evidence" can you provide that shows your myths and fantasies to be true and their myths and fantasies to be false?

By the way, what is my "faith, not evidence based" position?

Is there a difference, that actually matters, between a "traditional" religion and any other religion? Are Raëlism and Nuwaubianism "traditional" religions? How about all of the religions that go back to way before christianity? And does "traditional" have anything to do with veracity?

You quote exclusively from theistic evolutionists. Are you implying that they represent the whole of evolutionary thought? Is that really a tenable position given the large number of atheistic evolutionists? Why not balance the quotes you give above against something like the following:

An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: "I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one." I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

You also write:

Try to imagine that you believed in this Gnosticism. Then you too would be an evolutionist. Religion drives science, and it matters.

This is part of the Wikipedia entry on Gnosticism:

GnosticismFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gnosticism (from gnostikos, "learned", from Ancient Greek: γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge; Arabic: الغنوصية‎ al-ġnūṣīh) is the dualistic belief that the material world created by the Demiurge should be shunned and the spiritual world should be embraced (God's world). Gnostic ideas influenced many ancient religions[1] which teach that gnosis (variously interpreted as enlightenment, salvation, emancipation or 'oneness with God') may be reached by practicing philanthropy to the point of personal poverty, sexual abstinence (as far as possible for hearers, total for initiates) and diligently searching for wisdom by helping others.[2]

In what way is that objectionable? It seems to have a great deal in common with current Christian doctrine.

You quote exclusively from theistic evolutionists. Are you implying that they represent the whole of evolutionary thought? Is that really a tenable position given the large number of atheistic evolutionists?

Atheism does not contribute its own arguments. The proofs of evolution are metaphysical, regardless of whether in the hands of theists or atheists. You might say the atheists borrow from theism. Even Dawkins and Myers use the same old arguments.

Re Gnosticism, the point is not that is it objectionable but that given that you believe in it, then you're going to be an evolutionist. The religion drives the science.

DrHunter,Re Gnosticism, the point is not that is it objectionable but that given that you believe in it, then you're going to be an evolutionist.

In other words, the only reasonable scientific explanation is evolution, to believe otherwise one must invoke direct divine causation. So to rephrase your motto, certain religious beliefs drive the opposition to evolution,

Sounds like you are asserting that you have the knowledge to make a determination that something makes no sense. What an arrogant butt hole.

One of your least sophisticated "drive by shootings".

Thank you for your brevity. Most of your posts, from any conceivable sense of legitimate "science" are so far beyond reality as to stretch the constraints of what a modest definition of legitimate "speculation" would be.

Gnosticism (the belief that there are two world - the materialistic world and the spiritual world) entails belief in evolution (a scientific - and thus entirely materialistic - theory which is entirely compatible with most theological positions, including atheism)?

Really?

It's just such thorough nonsense. You might as well say "All Democrats believe in Evolution!"

Such are the ridiculous knots you tie yourself in, Cornelius, when you insist 'evolution' is a religious, rather than scientific, position.

Thanks, Dr. Hunter, for providing vocabulary for this phenomenon. I think that you have rightly defined, and correctly applied gnosticism. I think that the gnostic view is as wrong and dangerous now as it has ever been.

CH: Try to imagine that you believed in this Gnosticism. Then you too would be an evolutionist. Religion drives science, and it matters.

Wikipedia entry on Gnosticism:

"Gnosticism is the dualistic belief that the material world created by the Demiurge should be shunned and the spiritual world should be embraced (God's world). Gnostic ideas influenced many ancient religions which teach that gnosis (variously interpreted as enlightenment, salvation, emancipation or 'oneness with God') may be reached by practicing philanthropy to the point of personal poverty, sexual abstinence (as far as possible for hearers, total for initiates) and diligently searching for wisdom by helping others."

Wikipedia entry on Demiurge:

"The demiurge is a concept from the Platonic, Neopythagorean, Middle Platonic, and Neoplatonic schools of philosophy for an artisan-like figure responsible for the fashioning and maintenance of the physical universe. The term was subsequently adopted by the Gnostics. Although a fashioner, the demiurge is not necessarily thought of as being the same as the creator figure in the familiar monotheistic sense, because both the demiurge itself plus the material from which the demiurge fashions the universe are considered either uncreated and eternal, or the product of some other being, depending on the system. In Gnosticism the Demiurge, creator of the material world, was not God but the Archon."

Wikipedia entry on Archon;

"Archon is a Greek word that means "ruler" or "lord," frequently used as the title of a specific public office. It is the masculine present participle of the verb stem ἀρχ-, meaning "to rule," derived from the same root as monarch, hierarchy, and anarchy."

Gnosticism is yet another example of a pre-enlightenment conception of human knowledge where knowledge comes from an authoritative source: the Demiurge. While it might be evil or malevolent, an therefore avoided, it's still an authoritative source. Gnostic means knowledge about salvation and the divine, which supposedly represents a greater recognition of divinely revealed doctrines, scriptures, etc.

The principle of Evolution, on the other hand, says that adapted complexity can only come from variation and selection. It's fundamental because it is implicated in may other explanations, despite being a law of nature that is emergent.

The law of epistemology, says that knowledge is acquired by conjecture and criticism. This too is an emergent, fundamental law of nature.

So, Gnosticism is merely exchanging one authoritative source for another. As such, if I try to imagine I believed in Gnosticism, I wouldn't be an evolutionist.

"This prayer of reconciliation goes by many names and now has many advocates. But it is based on a fallacy. The fact that some scientists do not detect any problem with religious faith merely proves that a juxtaposition of good ideas/methods and bad ones is possible. Is there a conflict between marriage and infidelity? The two regularly coincide. The fact that intellectual honesty can be confined to a ghetto—in a single brain, in an institution, in a culture, etc—does not mean that there isn’t a perfect contradiction between reason and faith, or between the worldview of science taken as a whole and those advanced by the world’s “great,” and greatly discrepant, religions."

Furthermore, Collins sees confirmation everywhere, after his eyes of faith were opened, in the supposedly unexpected, rather than rational criticism. This includes whether he should accept the directorships of The Human Genome project.

"I spent a long afternoon praying in a little chapel, seeking guidance about this decision. I did not “hear” God speak—in fact, I’ve never had that experience. But during those hours, ending in an evensong service that I had not expected, a peace settled over me. A few days later, I accepted the offer."

Again, this is the idea that knowledge (whether he should accept the position) comes from authoritative, supernatural sources, which conflicts with the underlying evolutionary of evolutionary theory.

Any such boundary is dogmatic based on some interpretation of divine revelation. However, evolutionary theory says nothing about supernatural sources.

The idea that God isn't complex, and therefore wouldn't himself be subject to the same need of explanation, fails to take into account our best, current explanations on knowledge, complexity, etc.

The idea that "God domain is x" is based on this same flawed assumption.

Here we go again.The only problem between religion and science is a few conclusion in a few subjects touching on origin issues.Its not science but a few people calling themselves scince in the flesh who have decided God and Genesis are unrelated to the universe and so on.Creationism takes them on.We do well and will prevail. This forum does well as I have watched it.If they got science to show God/Genesis is wrong then show it. Prove your point.We prove you don't got it.Religion is just a expression of conclusions from a higher being isn't it?If he's commented on nature then its not two different spheres of influence.They smell they are losing folks.

Well they are showing its wrong by asserting evolution etc etc.They do say God/Genesis is wrong.its up to them to prove their case since they claim they can do it with natures evidence and since they are saying thats all the evidence that can be invoked.If they are saying gEnesis is wrong in its ideas of origins then show why its wrong.Show their was no flood as described and so on.?

Evolutionism has too long got away with not showing evidence for its claims. Actual biological evidence as opposed to speculation on biological data points.

Well they are showing its wrong by asserting evolution etc etc.They do say God/Genesis is wrong.its up to them to prove their case since they claim they can do it with natures evidence and since they are saying thats all the evidence that can be invoked.

No Rob, you are confused on the burden of proof.

If you make a claim, it is you have the burden to support it with evidence. If you cannot then your claim is forfeit. You do not get to make a claim and then insist the sceptics have a burden of proof to show that you are wrong. That is just illogical.

Scientists, in fact, claim nothing at all about God. Science cannot speak to the supernatural. We DO claim evolution and common descnet, but those are positions that we can support with evidence.

If they are saying gEnesis is wrong in its ideas of origins then show why its wrong.

Easily done. Simply provide your supporting evidence for Genesis and we will see whether such evidence actually weathers critical assessment. If it does not, then your case collapses.

Show their was no flood as described and so on.?

Again, you cannot prove a negative. But there is certainly a lack of evidence for a global flood - and that is the sort of global catastrophe that would leave a HUGE unmissable imprint in the geological record. So the idea that such a flood happened but that we keep missing the evidence, or the evidence if somehow absent, is all but untenable.

Evolutionism has too long got away with not showing evidence for its claims.

There is plenty of evidence for evolution. Its processes and mechanisms have been demonstrated and observed many times in both the lab and field.

RichieI'm coming from the observation evolutionists in their fights with creationists DO say Genesis is wrong or god is uninvolved.They say it and So i see its up to them to prove so.In this case its not about proving a negative etc.they are the intellectual aggressors when they say this surely.Otherwise yes one must prove ones case and not the other guy prove its not true.

Oddly Darwin made a famous about that. He said show him why small differences couldn't create all things. If you can't show why then its proof it did happen.

I'm coming from the observation evolutionists in their fights with creationists DO say Genesis is wrong or god is uninvolved.

I'm an 'evolutionist'. And I say we cannot disprove God. Please do not tell me what my own arguments are.

However, the Genesis account of creation certainly does conflict with the picture we draw from scientific inference. Also, the proposition that 'God did it' is not a scientific one until you explain how.

They say it and So i see its up to them to prove so.In this case its not about proving a negative etc.they are the intellectual aggressors when they say this surely.

Not at all. You have that completely backwards. What you call being the 'intellectual aggressor' in this case is actually merely being the sceptic. The sceptic does not have the burden of proof - the claimant does. Which is you.

Oddly Darwin made a famous about that. He said show him why small differences couldn't create all things. If you can't show why then its proof it did happen.

I know that this is a thread that ended 6 months ago, but I saw something interesting in the comments that I wanted to cash in on.

While I would not say that evolutionists are necessarily Gnostics, they do hold to similar fundamental philosophies. Many evolutionary scientists have said that belief in God makes us ignorant, but science has delivered us from that ignorance. That is a fundamental principle of Gnosticism-- where the God of the Old Testament, the Demiurge, has purposely tried to keep us in ignorance so that we cannot see that we are all divine. Only knowledge of the truth can save us from his tyranny.

It is also interesting that the Latin root for "Science" is scientia, which basically has the same meaning for the Greek word Gnosis -- both meaning knowledge.

Moreover, another point of contact between Gnosticism and Evolution is that both say we are of the same source, and all things are one. Evolution says we are of the same stuff of the Big Bang even as the stars and as the worms and algae are. Gnosticism says the same thing, basically, only they had a spiritual dimension to it saying that which makes us united as one is the divine spark.

But I find it interesting that so many evolutionists want so adamantly to deny their "religious presuppositions" that drive their scientific thought. There is no such thing as "raw data." We all come to the table with certain preconceptions and beliefs or world views that interpret the data that is before us. To deny that is simply being either ignorant of epistemology or woefully naive.

I know that this is a thread that ended 6 months ago, but I saw something interesting in the comments that I wanted to cash in on.

While I would not say that evolutionists are necessarily Gnostics, they do hold to similar fundamental philosophies. Many evolutionary scientists have said that belief in God makes us ignorant, but science has delivered us from that ignorance. That is a fundamental principle of Gnosticism-- where the God of the Old Testament, the Demiurge, has purposely tried to keep us in ignorance so that we cannot see that we are all divine. Only knowledge of the truth can save us from his tyranny.

It is also interesting that the Latin root for "Science" is scientia, which basically has the same meaning for the Greek word Gnosis -- both meaning knowledge.

Moreover, another point of contact between Gnosticism and Evolution is that both say we are of the same source, and all things are one. Evolution says we are of the same stuff of the Big Bang even as the stars and as the worms and algae are. Gnosticism says the same thing, basically, only they had a spiritual dimension to it saying that which makes us united as one is the divine spark.

But I find it interesting that so many evolutionists want so adamantly to deny their "religious presuppositions" that drive their scientific thought. There is no such thing as "raw data." We all come to the table with certain preconceptions and beliefs or world views that interpret the data that is before us. To deny that is simply being either ignorant of epistemology or woefully naive.

Cornelius G. Hunter is a graduate of the University of Illinois where
he earned a Ph.D. in Biophysics and Computational Biology. He is
Adjunct Professor at Biola University and author of the award-winning Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil. Hunter’s other books include Darwin’s Proof, and his newest book Science’s Blind Spot
(Baker/Brazos Press). Dr. Hunter's interest in the theory of evolution
involves the historical and theological, as well as scientific, aspects
of the theory. His website is http://www.darwins-god.blogspot.com/